Monday, April 11, 2011

FactChecker Says Ryan's Budget Proposals Do NOT Pass the Pinnocchio Test!

Ryan's Budget Proposal Highlights:

- Stacks the Deck with a (false) scary-looking graph

- Concocts "made up" scenarios

- 5.8 Trillion Dollars in Tax Cuts for the Rich - Obliterates Medicare! (make the Old / Sick use worthless Vouchers instead!)

- IGNORES CBO Estimates

The Facts

First off, Ryan stacks the deck a bit. His budget presentation shows a scary-looking graph depicting an ocean of red stretching long into the future. The graph is titled, “We are in a Spending-Driven Debt Crisis” and says it is based on “CBO’s Alternative Fiscal Scenario.” But then when you look at one of the papers from the Congressional Budget Office, it turns out that the scary scenario is also based on taxes being too low. In fact, taxes are a big part of the problem. The CBO paper assumes, among other things, that the Bush-era tax cuts are extended forever (as Ryan proposes to do); the alternative minimum tax is indexed for inflation (Ryan says he will deal with this problem) and tax law evolves so that revenue remains at 19 percent of GDP (as Ryan proposes to do.) Ryan also claims that his proposal has the imprimatur of the CBO. The budget document declares: “According to the Congressional Budget Office, this budget charts a path to complete balance. By 2040, the CBO estimates that this budget will produce annual surpluses and begin paying down the national debt.” This seriously overstates the case. Yes, CBO has produced a letter in which it plugged various data, plans and scenarios provided by Ryan’s staff into its budget database. But just as Republicans have repeatedly complained about the cost estimates associated with the Obama health-care law, this document largely reflects the scenarios that Ryan has concocted. And there’s a major caveat emptor: “CBO’s long-term scenarios and the proposal analyzed here are all subject to pressures over the long term that would make them difficult to sustain.”

It said that although debt would shrink relative to the size of the economy, Medicare beneficiaries “would bear a much larger share of their health-care costs than they would under the current program,” payments to doctors would shrink dramatically, states would have to pay substantially more for Medicaid and spending for programs other than Social Security and health programs “would be reduced far below historical levels relative to GDP.” Mysteriously, although Ryan relies on the CBO to vouch for his plan, he appears to ignore CBO estimates that a repeal of the health-care law would lead to an increase in the deficit. Instead, a substantial part of his claimed deficit reduction — $1.4 trillion over the next 10 yearscomes from repealing the health-care law. Where do those numbers come from? Ryan does not (cannot) explain, and his spokesman did not respond to a query. In one of the more dubious assertions, Ryan relies on a (dubious) report from the conservative (extreme right wing) Heritage Foundation to claim that his budget would result in a gusher of jobs. Be wary when politicians rely on analyses from outside groups — particularly partisan ones.

The Pinocchio Test: The Ryan budget plan relies on dubious assertions, questionable assumptions and fishy figures. The ideas may be bold, but the budget presentation falls short of his claim that he is getting rid of budget gimmicks. Ryan gets: Two Pinocchios

Note: The Koch Brothers are heavy contributors to the Heritage Foundation


Vicente Duque said...

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ( in San Francisco ) stops Arizona's SB 1070 once again. This court backs the injunction imposed by a federal judge in Phoenix - This is a Prohibition for SB 1070 to take effect in full form

Arizona's Controversial "Racial Profiling" or Racist Legislation is stopped once again of going into full effect.

Huffington Post
Arizona Immigration Law Ruling Refuses To Lift Ban On Enforcing Major Aspects Of Measure
April 11, 2011

Some excerpts :

PHOENIX -- A federal appeals court on Monday refused to lift a stay blocking major parts of Arizona's immigration law from taking effect and said the federal government is likely to be able to prove the controversial law is unconstitutional.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals turned down an appeal filed by Gov. Jan Brewer. She had asked the appeals court to lift an injunction imposed by a federal judge in Phoenix the day before the law was to take effect on July 29, 2010.

The U.S Justice Department sued to block the law, saying it violates the U.S. Constitution because enforcing immigration law is a federal issue.

U.S. District Court Judge Susan Bolton issued an injunction preventing four major parts of the law from going into effect pending a trial. Monday's ruling by the three-judge panel upheld that injunction.

The appeals court said the government is likely to succeed in its arguments that Congress has given the federal government sole authority to enforce immigration laws, and that the Arizona law violates the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution.

Parts of the law blocked from taking effect while the case works its way through the courts include a provision requiring police to question people's immigration status while enforcing other laws if there is a reasonable suspicion they're in the country illegally. Other provisions on hold include: requiring all immigrants to obtain or carry immigration registration papers; making it a state criminal offense for an illegal immigrant to seek work or hold a job; and allowing police to arrest suspected illegal immigrants without a warrant.

In a separate opinion concurring with the panel's ruling, Appeals Court Judge John T. Noonan noted the intent of the state statute is clear and goes beyond what federal law allows.

"If we read Section 1 of the statute, the statute states the purpose of providing a solution to illegal immigration in the United States. So read, the statute is a singular entry into the foreign policy of the United States by a single state," he wrote.

K. Andrew said...

Score one for Liberty and the Constitution.

K. Andrew said...

Tell me one instance where the CBO estimate was even close to actuality...

Page Hits